DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
2. The Amendments filed May 4th, 2026 are noted. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification to overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/04/2026 are noted. Applicant’s amendment(s) to the Specification have overcome the objection(s) to the Title previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/04/2026, so the objection(s) to the Title has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are noted.
3. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
4. Claims 1-15 have been fully considered in examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0006694A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches a light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] comprising:
a substrate (100) fig. 2 [0031] including a first area (EA1) and a second area (EA2) adjacent to the first area (EA1) (see annotated fig. 2 below for EA1, EA2 definitions);
a first pixel (RP2 in EA1 boundaries) fig. 2 [0036] disposed in the first area (EA1);
a second pixel (RP1 in EA2 boundaries) fig. 2 [0031] disposed in the second area (EA2); and
a bank (comprising 340, AG, 354) fig. 2 [0031, 0102] (partially) between the first pixel (RP2) and the second pixel (RP1) to define (collectively define boundaries of with other structures of) a first emission area (EA1) [see annotated fig. 2 above] of the first pixel (RP2) fig. 2 [0031] and a second emission area (EA2) of the second pixel (RP1) [0031];
a metal patterning layer (352) fig. 2 [0031] disposed on (supported by) the bank (comprising 340, 354) as (partially) covering (edge) the second pixel (RP1) in the second area (EA1), except the (center of) first pixel (RP2) (as defined in annotated fig. 2 below);
a light blocking layer (BM2) fig. 2 [0031] disposed on (supported by) the bank (comprising 340, AG, 354) as (internally) surrounding the first emission area (EA1), except the second emission area (EA2),
wherein the metal patterning layer (352) fig. 2 [0031] (partially) covers the (edges of) first emission area (EA1) and the second emission area (EA2) (as defined in annotated fig. 2 below), and
wherein the light blocking layer (BM2) and the metal patterning layer (352) are disposed on (supported by) a same layer (100).
[AltContent: textbox (Bank)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (352 length away from edge of EA2)][AltContent: textbox (SW2 = between two points in EA1 and EA2 defined as separated by 2x 352 length)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (SW1 = between two points in EA1 and EA2 defined as separated by 2.5x BM2 length)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (BM2 length away from edge of EA2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (EA1)][AltContent: textbox (EA2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
880
1017
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 of Lim
Regarding claim 2, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 1. Lim also teaches wherein the light blocking layer (BM2) fig. 2 [0031] is disposed from an edge of a first emission area (EA1) [see annotated fig. 2 above] of the first pixel (RP2) fig. 2 [0031] to a point defined between 1/3 and 1/2 of a separation width (SW1, defined in fig. 2 above) the first emission area (EA1) of the first pixel (RP2) and a second emission area (EA2) of the second pixel (RP1) [0031] (SW1 is defined between two points spaced apart by 2.5x BM2 width such that BM2 length from an edge of EA1 is 1/2.5 = 0.4 of SW1, as defined in annotated fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 4, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 1. Lim also teaches further comprising:
a first pixel electrode (310b) fig. 2 [0031, 0040] in the first pixel (RP2 in EA1 boundaries) fig. 2 [0036];
a second pixel electrode (310a) fig. 2 [0031, 0040] in the second pixel (RP1 in EA2 boundaries) fig. 2 [0031];
the bank (comprising 340, AG, 354) fig. 2 [0031, 0102] disposed (diagonally) between the first pixel electrode (310b) and the second pixel electrode (310a) (see annotated fig. 2 above);
an emission layer (320) fig. 2 [0031] over the first pixel electrode (310b), the bank (comprising 340, AG, 352) and the second pixel (RP1 in EA2 boundaries);
a common electrode (330) fig. 2 [0031] on the emission layer (320); and
a first protective layer (362) fig. 2 [0083] on the common electrode (330).
Regarding claim 5, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 4. Lim also teaches wherein the metal patterning layer (352) fig. 2 [0031] is disposed on (supported by bottom of) the first protective layer (362) fig. 2 [0083], and disposed within (partially within/ shared between) the first emission area (EA1) and the second emission area (EA2), and wherein the metal patterning layer (352) is further disposed from the second emission area (EA2) to a position on the bank (comprising 340) fig. 2 [0031, 0102] defined at 1/2 to 2/3 (1/2) of a separation width (SW2) between the first emission area (EA1) and the second emission area (EA2) (SW2 is defined between two points spaced apart by 2x 352 in EA2 width such that 352 length from an edge of EA2 is 1/2 = 0.5 of SW2, as defined in annotated fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 6, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 4. Lim also teaches wherein the light blocking layer (BM2) fig. 2 [0031] is disposed from the first emission area (EA1) on the first protective layer (362) fig. 2 [0083] to a position defined at 1/3 to 1/2 (2/5 of SW1) between (selected points spaced by SW1 of) the first emission area (EA1) and the second emission area (EA2) (SW1 is defined between two points spaced apart by 2.5x BM2 width such that BM2 length from an edge of EA1 is 1/2.5 = ~0.4 of SW1, as defined in annotated fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 7, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 4. Lim also teaches wherein the metal patterning layer (352) fig. 2 [0031] and the light blocking layer (BM2) fig. 2 [0031] is disposed on the first protective layer (362) fig. 2 [0083], and wherein the light emitting display device further comprises:
a second protective layer (400) fig. 2 [0148] on (supported by) the metal patterning layer (352) and the light blocking layer (BM2).
Regarding claim 8, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 1. Lim also teaches wherein the first area (EA1 overlapping RP2, GP2, BP2) and the second area (EA2 overlapping RP1) have a strip (rectangular) shape [see fig. 1] extending in a first direction (y), and are arranged alternately in a second direction (x) [0037] different from the first direction (y) [0119].
Regarding claim 9, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 8. Lim also teaches wherein the first direction (y) is a vertical direction on the substrate (100) [0031] in a plan view (in configuration as shown in fig. 1), and wherein the second direction (x) is a horizontal direction (in configuration as shown in fig. 1) on the substrate in the plan view (in configuration as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 8. Lim also teaches wherein the first direction (y) is a horizontal direction on the substrate (100) [0031] in a plan view (see rotated fig. 1 below), and wherein the second direction (x) is a vertical direction on the substrate (100) in the plan view (see rotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
801
1326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rotated fig. 1 from which device has been considered with respect to claim 10
Regarding claim 12, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 1. Lim also teaches wherein, in a narrow viewing angle mode (“security mode” [0036, 0077]), the first pixel (RP2 in EA1 boundaries) fig. 2 [0036] emits lights [0077], and the second pixel (RP1 in EA2 boundaries) fig. 2 [0036] does not emit lights (in central regions) (P2 pixels driven separately from P1 pixels [0036, 0077]).
Regarding claim 15, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 1. Lim also teaches wherein the light blocking layer (BM2) fig. 2 [0031] is disposed at an area where the metal patterning layer (352) fig. 2 [0031] is not disposed (BM2 in area vertically beyond area where 352 disposed)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0006694A1) (of record), as applied in claim 1 above, in view of Chang (U.S. PG Pub No US2016/0181476A1) (of record) and Yim (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0013100A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 3, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 1. However, Lim does not explicitly disclose wherein the light blocking layer (BM2) fig. 2 [0031] includes a metal material (black-pigment organic material instead [0090]) with a light absorption or light reflectance of 90%, at least, and wherein the metal patterning layer (352) fig. 2 [0031] includes an organic material (SiON instead) [0061] with a light transmittance of 90%, at least.
Chang teaches a light emitting display device [see fig. 21, 0061] wherein the light blocking layer (340) fig. 21 [0061] includes a metal material (silver particles [0061]) with a light reflectance of 90%, at least.
Although Chang does not explicitly disclose the light absorption or light reflectance values of the metal material included in the light blocking layer (“black matrix”) 340, Chang discloses that the light blocking material of 340 may comprise silver particles [0061 Chang] – which is substantially the same as the metal material disclosed in [0092] of the instant application’s specification as having a reflectance of “90% or more”. Therefore, silver is assumed to inherently have a light reflectance of 90% or more – in view of [0092] of the instant application’s disclose. (See MPEP 2112.01).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the black matrix in the light emitting display device of Lim to comprise silver particles [0061 Chang] in order to enhance light blockage characteristics [0061] of the black matrix, as taught by Chang.
However, Lim in view of Chang does not explicitly disclose and wherein the metal patterning layer (352) fig. 2 [0031] includes an organic material (SiON instead) [0061] with a light transmittance of 90%, at least.
Yim teaches a display device (102) fig. 8 [0136-0137] wherein the metal patterning layer (331) figs. 7-8 [0121] includes an organic material (TAZ instead of SiN/SiON) [0121] with a light transmittance of 90%, at least.
Although Yim does not explicitly disclose the light transmittance of the organic material 3-(4-biphenyl)-4-phenyl-5-t-butylphenyl-1,2,4-triazole (TAZ) included in the metal patterning layer, Yim discloses that the light blocking material may comprise 3-(4-biphenyl)-4-phenyl-5-t-butylphenyl-1,2,4-triazole (TAZ) [0121 Yim] – which is substantially the same as the metal material disclosed in [0094] of the instant application’s specification as having a light transmittance of “90% or more”. Therefore, TAZ-material is assumed to inherently have a light transmittance of 90% or more – in view of [0094] of the instant application’s disclose. (See MPEP 2112.01).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metal patterning layer in the light emitting display device of Lim in view of Chang to comprise a material such as 3-(4-biphenyl)-4-phenyl-5-t-butylphenyl-1,2,4-triazole (TAZ) [0121 Yim] in order to selectively vary and control the refractive index of the metal patterning layer [0121-0123] so as to improve light emission uniformity and efficiency [0104], as taught by Yim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0006694A1) (of record), as applied in claim 1 above, in view of Engelen (U.S. PG Pub No US2019/0335164A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 11, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 1. However, Lim wherein does not explicitly disclose a first viewing angle of the first area (EA1 overlapping P2 pixels) is 30-degree, at most, and wherein a second viewing angle (EA2 overlapping P1 pixels) of the second area is 70-degree, at least (“narrow” first viewing angle said to be less than “wide” second viewing angle [0036], but degree-values not explicitly disclosed).
Engelen teaches a light emitting display device [see fig. 1, 0051-0057] wherein a first viewing angle of the first area (14) fig. 1 [0056] (corresponding to “narrow viewing angle” display area) [0057] is 30-degree (10-25 degrees [0057]), at most (at most 25 degrees), and wherein a second viewing angle of the second area (10) fig. 1 [0053] (corresponding to “wide viewing angle” display area) [0053] of the second area is 70-degrees [0053], at least (100 to 175-degrees [0052-0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the display device of Lim such that the narrow viewing angle explicitly corresponds to an angle of at most 25 degrees [0057] and the wide viewing angle explicitly corresponds to a viewing angle of at least 100 degrees [0052-0053] in order to improve resolution of the narrow display area [0056-0058] while maximizing viewing distance for the wide display area [0052-0053], as taught by Engelen.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0006694A1) (of record), as applied in claim 1 above, in view of Chang (U.S. PG Pub No US2016/0181476A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 13, Lim teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 1. However, Lim does not explicitly disclose wherein the light blocking layer (BM2) fig. 2 [0031] includes at least one of ytterbium (Yb), calcium (Ca), titanium (Ti), magnesium (Mg), barium (Ba), silver (Ag), sliver-ytterbium silver-ytterbium (Ag-Yb) alloy and silver-magnesium (Ag-Mg) alloy (black-pigment organic material instead of metal [0090]).
Chang teaches a light emitting display device [see fig. 21, 0061] wherein the light blocking layer (340) fig. 21 [0061] includes at least one of silver [0061] (silver particles [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the black matrix in the light emitting display device of Lim to comprise silver particles [0061 Chang] in order to enhance light blockage characteristics [0061] of the black matrix, as taught by Chang.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0006694A1) (of record) modified by Chang (U.S. PG Pub No US2016/0181476A1) (of record), as applied in claim 13 above, and further in view of Yim (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0013100A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 14, Lim in view of Chang teaches the light emitting display device [see fig. 2, 0030] according to claim 13. However, Lim in view of Chang does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal patterning layer (352) fig. 2 [0031] includes a 3-(Biphenyl-4-yl)-5-(4-tert1butylphenyl)-4-phenyl-4H-1,2,4-triazole (TAZ) (SiON instead [0061]).
Yim teaches a display device (102) fig. 8 [0136-0137] wherein the metal patterning layer (331) figs. 7-8 [0121] includes a 3-(Biphenyl-4-yl)-5-(4-tert1butylphenyl)-4-phenyl-4H-1,2,4-triazole (TAZ) [0121] (and/or SiN/SiON [0121]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metal patterning layer in the light emitting display device of Lim in view of Chang to comprise a material such as 3-(4-biphenyl)-4-phenyl-5-t-butylphenyl-1,2,4-triazole (TAZ) [0121 Yim] in order to selectively vary and control the refractive index of the metal patterning layer [0121-0123] so as to improve light emission uniformity and efficiency [0104], as taught by Yim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments do not specifically point out the supposed errors/deficiencies with respect to the teachings of primary reference, therefore, Lim as applied in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of amended claim 1 above is considered as a sufficient response-to-arguments with respect to the teachings of Lim and the amended limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
All references made available on the PTO-892 form are considered relevant to the present disclosure because they all feature display devices with light-modulating structures.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 06/30/2026
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights